I would be very surprised and disappointed if Gov. Paterson appoints another white male from NYC

[BurtWorm]

to take Hillary Clinton's place in the Senate. And I say that as a white male from NYC. I hope to be pleasantly surprised by his announcement of a woman or person of color, preferably from upstate. That would be a wise use of his appointment privilege. The Senate doesn't need any more white men or dynasts, frankly. I can only hope the governor feels the same way. It would, as I say, surprise me if he didn't.

[Taverner]

1. I want Jerrold Nadler!!!!

Liberal Firebrand!

[NYCGirl]

2. He's my rep. I want to keep him! NT

[Taverner]

4. You would - just as "SENATOR NADLER!!!"

He was one of the ONLY dems who didn't cave into Bush.

For a while, it seemed like it was just him and our guy (Hon.Pete Stark) who were holding down the fort

[aquart]

5. Keep your paws off my Jerry's seniority.

[Taverner]

6. Aw come on - don't tell me Secretary of State Nadler doesn't have that ring to it

[aquart]

34. And then what, huh? And then what?

HE RUNS UNOPPOSED. (I mean, they must put somebody up but no one ever looks.) Why would he go from being bigger and bigger to the new guy on the block?

And we have a Secretary of State, snookums.

[Taverner]

36. Well yeah, but Clinton is going to need one when she's prez

[bluestateguy]

3. How about a white male from Upstate or Long Island?

nt

[BurtWorm]

8. That would be less preferable than a person of color from NYC.

I know it's a weird calculation, but it really would be better for the Senate, the country, the state, the Democratic party, the world, even, if Paterson names a qualified person of color or woman, regardless of where they come from, than if he gives the opportunity to yet another white man. It would be better if he appoints a male of color than a white woman, in my opinion, but another woman of any color would be preferable than a white man.

It's awful that white men *should* be discriminated against, but that's just the way it has to be until the White Man's Club of the Senate is integrated. It would be a tremendous shame if the governor misses this opportunity to do his part to catch the Senate up to the rest of the country in terms of demographics.

[bluestateguy]

10. In that case, I would pick Nita Lowey

She'd win in 2010, and her House seat is safe (D).

I'm sure Kirsten Gildebrand would be a fine senator and a good prospect for election in 2010, but her House seat could slip away, as it is still a Republican leaning district.

[BurtWorm]

12. I bet it will be Nita Lowey.

It would be mind-blowing if he picked Nydia Velazquez. Or Christine Quinn.

[bluestateguy]

13. I seem to remember Velazquez bowing out of consideration

and I think she would have electability issues.

[DinahMoeHum]

17. IIRC, she also has a 1-2 important chair/vice-chair positions

in the House, so she'd be too valuable to replace there.

[Fire1]

7. I, too, would like to see another woman take Clinton's seat.

[county worker]

9. Would it make any difference if the white male and any other gender or race would vote

similarly?

I don't see the need to pick a specific race or gender or to exclude any. I think it does make a difference if the one picked leans right or left. That would be my yardstick.

[BurtWorm]

11. Why pick a left-leaning white male when you can pick a left-leaning person of color

who'd be just as good, and perhaps even better. The Senate needs to start looking more like the rest of the country. More than that, it needs to reflect the experiences of the rest of the country.

[DinahMoeHum]

15. Name us one, please. Thanks.

n/t

[BurtWorm]

18. Bill Perkins. Virginia Fields. William Thompson. Jeffrey Canada.

I know. You said just one.

[DinahMoeHum]

26. Hey, it's a start. But are they known outside of NYC ??

There's a whole lot of New York upstate, ya know.

[BurtWorm]

27. I don't know that part of New York, But I agree that geography ought also to be considered.

Preferably, the appointee will be a woman or person of color from outside the NYC metro area.

[DinahMoeHum]

29. Then I'd look at Rep. Louise Slaughter (CD-28 - Buffalo/Rochester)

although, like Lowey and Velazquez, she probably has a few chair/vice-chair positions in Congress by now and would be difficult to replace.

:kick:

[BurtWorm]

30. I liked the idea of her until someone pointed out she'd be over 80 when election rolled around.

She doesn't look it, though. And I love her politics.

[county worker]

22. Why give a damn what race a person is?

[BurtWorm]

24. Why not give a damn when it's in your power to diversify a homogeneous group?

Especially a group that wields an inordinate amount of power?

[county worker]

23. I long for the day when a man is judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his

skin or something like that.

[BurtWorm]

25. I hate to say this, but a lot of white-wing Republicans use that bullshit line

to justify failure to integrate seats of power. I'm sure that's not where you're coming from, white?

[county worker]

38. Yes I am a white male. I'm not conservative nor do I let DU do my thinking for me.

[Ichingcarpenter]

Gov. Paterson doesn't see color

'Stephen Colbert' .... I think he will make a wise choice in order to keep the seat.

[BurtWorm]

16. Legally he doesn't anyway.

;-)

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. Colbert said that when he was on his show

Just like me you don't see color do you?..... or something like that.

[BurtWorm]

21. I hope Paterson laughed.

I know he has a sense of humor, though he wasn't amused by SNL's imitation of him.

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. dupe n/t

'

[AndrewP]

20. I hope he picks someone competent.

[Iggo]

28. Yeah! Screw whitey!

WTF?

[spin]

31. How about he promotes the best person regardless of race or gender. (n/t)

edited to correct spelling

[BurtWorm]

32. Because there's no such thing as 'the best person regardless of race or color.'

Not for that job. Not in this year.

[spin]

37. Possibly true, but I'm sure there are some very qualified people....

to choose from.

Since I don't live in New York, I have no suggestions. However, as a citizen of this country, I feel we need to put the best people we can find into office. It would be nice to find someone who understands the plight of the middle class or lower class by actually having experienced it. Especially in that job and in this year.

[BurtWorm]

39. You're very likely to find such a person among people of color or women.

Among white men, too, of course. But that demographic is extremely well represented in the Senate as it is. Time to spread the power around to other groups. Don't you think?

[spin]

40. Well, you do have a point...

also the Senate is known as a millionaires club. Money and greed got us into the mess we are in now.

In what can realistically only be described as a form of legalized bribery, it is well known that wealth buys access to power. In a nutshell: those with money have access to power that those without money do not. In a society divided by socioeconomic class, the result is that the average American working family has little representation in government. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (November 2004), the mean annual income across all occupations in the United States is $37,440. Contrast this figure with the income of the people elected to serve in Congress. There are four hundred and thirty five members in the House of Representatives. Of that number one hundred and twenty three had at least one million dollar incomes. As bad as this is, the disparity in the Senate is far greater.

Here’s an example. Republican Senate Majority leader Bill Frist recently reported an income of forty-five million dollars. Ironically, Frist’s counterpart in the Senate, Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, was among the least wealthy elected officials.

Congressional wealth, however, is bipartisan. In 2002 forty three percent of incoming freshmen had annual incomes of at least one million dollars. By contrast, only one percent of the public have incomes of one million dollars or more. On the Democratic side of the isle are names including Kennedy and Rockefeller, whose ill gotten fortunes boggle the mind of ordinary working people.

The income chasm between members of Congress and that of ordinary Americans is a primary reason why so many working class people have dropped out of the political process. They know that the ‘appearance’ of choice in political races is little more than an illusion of choice. So vast are the sums of money needed to run a major political campaign today that only the wealthiest people can afford to run. This leaves ninety-nine percent of the population out in the cold. The situation underscores why we need to get the special interest money out of politics. The playing field can be leveled and integrity restored to the process through publicly financed campaigns. By publicly funding political campaigns all of the candidates would have equal funding. The wealthy would have no special advantage. Working class Americans could reenter the political process and have a real chance of winning elections and thus gaining representation.

The result of having too many wealthy people in office is having calamitous impacts on America’s working class families—the backbone of our society. It has resulted in the breakdown of the family unit. Wealthy people are likely to look out for their own financial interests rather than the welfare of society, especially the poor. This form of government excludes the vast majority of the citizenry from the process and leaves them utterly without representation. It leaves them alone and vulnerable to predation by the rich.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11104.htm

[KamaAina]

33. "regardless of rice or gender"?

So I guess Condi's out of the running? :-)

[spin]

35. Thanks, corrected the mistake...

spell check doesn't always trump stupid mistakes.